Omegle: ‘How I got the dangerous chat site closed down’
www.bbc.co.uk
"Alice" speaks exclusively to the BBC after her successful lawsuit against Omegle forced it offline.

BBC: The woman who successfully sued the website that matched her with a paedophile explains how she forced the site to close down. ‘Alice’, or A.M. as she was known in court says she feels "vindic…::“Alice” speaks exclusively to the BBC after her successful lawsuit against Omegle forced it offline.

  • @FishFaceEnglish
    4•7 months ago

    He did take action to stop it - he aided in multiple prosecutions. What he didn’t do was turn the site into something completely different, with mandatory registration.

      • @FishFaceEnglish
        1•7 months ago

        How does that contradict what I said, or else what point are you trying to make?

        Even though you’re quite sure the site owner needed to do more to stop paedophiles, you haven’t said what. Is what you think he should have done to have sacrificed anonymity?

          • @FishFaceEnglish
            1•7 months ago

            Statement by Leif K-Brooks:

            Omegle’s moderation even had a positive impact beyond the site. Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to.

            Example article: https://www.guelphmercury.com/news/crime/guelph-man-can-no-longer-be-teacher-after-child-porn-conviction/article_7b1fca76-cef1-56e5-a9e7-cb9091ac43bb.html

            The NCMEC received information from Omegle about the activities of a paedophile and it led to their conviction.

            But your quote is not the opposite of my claim. It says that “the site has been mentioned in more than 50 cases against paedophiles.” How many of those cases included evidence collected and submitted by Omegle?

            Do please answer my question:

            Even though you’re quite sure the site owner needed to do more to stop paedophiles, you haven’t said what. Is what you think he should have done to have sacrificed anonymity?

              • @FishFaceEnglish
                1•7 months ago

                You haven’t answered my question. If you dislike anonymity that much, why are you hiding it? It’s important because a lot of people, especially on places like this, are fans of anonymity.

                If you shout loudly about how awful something is but neglect to mention that your proposed solution is harmful in some other way, then you’re being dishonest. Using pointlessly charged language like “simping” just contributes to that.

                And in the article, the police would not have been able to do any work if they hadn’t been informed with the help of the owner. Your dismissal is backpedaling: you asserted that K-Brooks didn’t do anything to stop abuse on the site, but he did, by encouraging prosecutions against people who used the site to commit abuse. You never demanded that he get out there and citizens’ arrest the guys himself, because you knew that would be a stupid thing to demand.

                  • @FishFaceEnglish
                    1•7 months ago

                    If you want to ask questions you have to at least pretend to argue in good faith: I’ll answer as soon as you produce something resembling an answer to mine.